I hadn't considered that interpretation of the precedent. While it is hopeful that would be the interpretation of this case in the future, common-law really does come down to how a judge chooses to interpret the precedent. This is a common problem with common-law (HA). This was in federal court, not the Supreme Court.

If the Jury had not reached a unanimous decision, that would result in a hung jury. It's entirely possible for a few Jurors to impede an entire court case through this method. It might explain the ludicrous payout they determined to be adequate. (I could be wrong here, different countries allow different results regarding different cases such as 11 v 1 or 12 v 1) 

Regarding the shooting, there seems to be several different versions (looking through the articles again.) Some report the door was being closed, some report the door as closed. If the door was in the process of being closed, and the officer is capable of drawing and firing his gun in that short amount of time, with accuracy (according to all reports Hill took one look at the cops and said F this Sh-t I'm out) I would assume the man also has sharp enough reflexes and perception to register multiple hits incapacitating the target. This would raise questions as to why they waited 4 hours before entering the garage. Of course this would elicit the same answer as to why he shot in the first place.

Also I am no ballistics expert, but the order of shooting is entirely up for debate, I don't think there is anyway to prove which bullet was fired first (if there is, damn science you scary). Either way that shot gives a clue as to the officers mentality, the shot is clearly off target compared to the other three, either it was a case of tracking/predicting where the target was going (falling), or he opened fire before acquiring the target in his sights. (if he had brandished a gun, while this is minorly reprehensible, I don't blame the officer) Either way im pretty sure that is the shot that missed, I just find it curious.

As for the perception, iunno, a court case like this certainly doesn't help the perception, that is on the Judge (for not throwing out the verdict) and the Jury however. Also the perception, while historically true, isn't currently accurate. That's another debate that I feel we stand on the same side of though.

I'm not saying that his thoughts were "cops are here, I'm dead" I'm saying his thoughts were, and I'm assuming he did point a gun in this case, "I just pointed a gun at a cop, I'm dead."

Honestly the only assumption I am making for that paragraph is that he had already drawn the firearm and that they were aggressively loud (which I assume they did so he could hear them. I wouldn't consider this a far stretch) I'm pretty sure I'd grab a bat based on past experiences (huge misunderstanding all around, sorry bud, I still <3 you tho) I know they wouldn't be screaming police around here, in fact in the event of a noise complaint, they would actually just call and tell us to turn it down, and would only show up if we didn't comply. Assuming similar procedure of operations, we can assume Hill may have been acting belligerently. (drunk) The assholes with plus one in the chamber is again experience - and coming from a country where the idea of a civilian carrying around a firearm, let alone a handgun, is uncommon to say the least.

[quote=@mdk]

I mean not to be cold, but a headshot through a closing door with a gun in your face is pretty composed.

<Snipped quote>

That's not in evidence.
[/quote]

Not to sound sadistic, but I laughed like a madman at that.

Thank God it's not in evidence lmao, I've been told I look like a murderer even when I'm having a blast, so I can only imagine the thoughts of the Officers who did see me. 


Another counter argument, that I am surprised hasn't been mentioned at all, is that Hill's home was directly across from a school. It's possible that the over-reaction by the Officer was in part due to concern for the students exiting the building (it was right as the school day was ending) If the officer mentioned this during the trial, and assuming the gun was actually drawn, I would be in complete agreement with the verdict. However, I haven't seen one mention of the officer reporting concern for the students.

Obviously, the media, biased or unbiased, is not able to provide a play by play account of court proceedings (well they could if it was a public trial, but i doubt many would read it) Which is exactly why I asked for alternative media regarding the trial. However even the alternative media sources provided agree on the entire story, excluding (garage door withstanding) the location of Hill's gun at the time of the shooting. Sadly, this is the most integral part of the case to determining who was in the wrong. While I'm sure the Jury was presented with plenty of evidence we will never hear nor see, in the court of public opinion (as well as in actual court) while it would be nice to have all the facts and evidence, we must come to our conclusions based upon the tools (information) we have at our disposal.

P.s. The Jury's decision is one of those tools, as is the Judge's decision not to throw it out. My disagreement with their decision doesn't change that. Just wanted to make that clear.